Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:34:26PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:16:22PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> >
> > > PS: From my point of view, Invariant sections are perfectly ok when you
> > > are talking about non-technical related issues (example: author's opinions
> > > in an article)
> >
> > Strongly disagree. Freedom to fork a project is the basic right that
> > Debian guarantees its users, and invariant sections remove that ability.
>
> Forking a project is not the same as putting words in my mouth I
> didn't say and that's what Invariant sections are for.
You're probably thinking of "immutable" sections, or something. That
would be a good name for sections that you're not allowed to modify.
The "Invariant Sections" in the GFDL are far more restrictive: you're
not allowed to ever modify or remove them, no matter how much you modify
the rest of the documentation. And even if you lift only a single chapter
from a GFDLed document, you have to copy all of its Invariant Sections
verbatim.
The combination of immutability and nonremovability is what makes them
non-free, in my opinion. I wouldn't have a problem with some immutable
sections, as long as they contain no technical information and can be
discarded in the event of a significant fork.
Richard Braakman
Reply to: